Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Aragon region has reported this note: "There is a double and apparently contradictory trend: At the same time, some areas are being damaged by overgrazing, and others are being degraded by colonization of woody plants, due to abandonment of grazing. So, there is being a loss of area of habitat in good condition. This is due to change in the livestock breeds and the management type, with the choice of very sedentary cow races, and the ongoing absence of shepherds in the field." ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Rozmieszczenie siedliska w regionie ALP jest zależne od występowania odpowiednich uwarunkowań środowiskowych. Aktualnie znane i wykazywane stanowiska, to: Pieniny, Małe Pieniny, Pieniński Pas Skałkowy, Góra Matyska, Mały Grojec, Kopa Radziechowska, (Góra Bucze i Góra Tuł, choć zlokalizowane są na Pogórzu Beskidu Śląskiego, należą już do regionu kontynentalnego) .
Powierzchnia zasięgu siedliska zwiększyła się z 626 do 1700 km2 głównie w wyniku polepszenia wiedzy ale i innego sposobu jej obliczania.
Część z płatów siedlisk to w miarę typowo wykształcone murawy kserotermiczne, rzadkie w regionie – głównie w Pieninach. W pozostałych przypadkach to raczej płaty przejściowe z udziałem gatunków ciepłolubnych, uznanych za charakterystyczne dla klasy Festuco-Brometea w zbiorowiskach łąkowych (płaty mało typowe).
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko w regionie ALP występuje w: Pieninach (40 ha), Małych Pieninach (wg.PZO 0,76 ha) i Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym - podobnie, oszacowane na ok. 0,5 ha. Niewielkie powierzchnie zanikających muraw na Górze Matyska ok. 6,5 ha (wartość podana, ale prawdopodobnie przeszacowana), Mały Grojec 1,4 ha, Kopa Radziechowska ok. 0,2 ha. Łącznie ok. 0,4236 km2. W PZO dla Beskidu Żywieckiego siedlisko nie wykazane.
Powierzchnia siedliska została podana na podstawie zsumowania powierzchni siedliska w parku narodowym (wg planu ochrony) i obszarze Natura 2000 Małe Pieniny (wg PZO), wyników prac terenowych na Górze Matyska i oszacowania w Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym oraz na pozostałych stanowiskach w Beskidzach Zachodnich.
Według danych z bazy GDOŚ (SDF obszarów Natura 2000 powierzchnia ta, to ok. 54 ha plus 26,4 ha w Ostoi Popradzkiej, w której błędnie zaliczono do siedliska 6210 kadłubowe zbiorowiska łąkowe z udziałem gatunków ciepłolubnych.
Właściwy areał referencyjny określony jako równy aktualnemu i rzeczywistej powierzchni zajmowanej w 2013 roku, choć liczbowo jest to wartość mniejsza, niż podana w 2013 roku: ok. 2 km2. Jest to powierzchnia wystarczająca do przetrwania siedliska w dłuższej perspektywie czasowej.
Powierzchnia siedliska ulega prawdopodobnie stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania przez drzewa i krzewy, przy braku użytkowania pastwiskowego i/lub kośnego. Nieoszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tego zarastania, brak danych porównawczych, choć prawdopodobnie nie osiaga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie. Dlatego trend określono jako niepewny (poprzednio jako nieznany).
Nastąpiła zmiana wartości powierzchni siedliska w stosunku do poprzednich raportów (2007 i 2013), ze względu na wykorzystanie danych z projektów planu ochrony Pienińskiego Parku Narodowego i obszaru Natura 2000 oraz informacji zebranych przez ekspertów przy okazji wykonywanych prac terenowych.

Źródła informacji:
Pieniny: http://www.pieninypn.pl/files/img/fck/8910195/pieninskipn/File/Plan%20ochrony/Projekt_rozporzadzenia_planu_ochrony_PPN.pdf
Małe Pieniny: http://krakow.rdos.gov.pl/files/artykuly/22632/pieniny_szablon.pdf
P. Nejfeld – inf. ustna (Beskid Śląski, Beskid Żywiecki),
PMŚ ||
->HabCondition: Stan siedliska w Pieninach (ocena obszaru N2000) w 2014 roku został oceniony jako FV (PMŚ), jak również na 12 spośród 15 stanowisk zinwentaryzowanego siedliska w Małych Pieninach (PZO). Na Małym Grojcu i Górze Matyska (PMŚ) oceniony na U2.
Stan siedliska w Pienińskim Pasie Skałkowym jest nieznany (choć z obserwacji własnych wynika dobry stan przynajmniej na części ostańców) i w drobnej części powierzchni pozostałych obszarów; na Kopie Radziechowskiej jest większe prawdopodobieństwo złego stanu.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX.
W PMŚ badano 13 stanowisk; 8% z nich oceniono na FV pod względem parametru struktura i funkcje, 61% na U1 i 31% na U2. ||
->Future: Zasięg może ulec zmniejszeniu, jeśli stan siedliska na stanowiskach w Zachodnich Beskidach się pogorszy, doprowadzając nawet do jego zaniku. Ze względu na brak danych o stanie muraw na części tych stanowisk uznano perspektywy dla Zasięgu za nieznane.
Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie jest aktualnie tylko na części stanowisk stabilna; na 31% stanowisk w PMŚ oceniona na FV (61% na U1 i 8 % na U2) i stosunkowo niewielka, ale uzależniona od obecności odpowiednich warunków środowiskowych. Poprzednio powierzchnia oceniona na U2, ze względu na niewielkie zasoby siedliska, ale jej aktualny stan pozwala na podniesienie oceny perspektyw dla Powierzchni na U1. Dane z planów ochrony wskazują nawet na ocenę FV dla większości zasobów.
Struktura i funkcje oraz Perspektywy ochrony ocenione zostały na FV w cytowanych planach ochrony, ze względu na taką ocenę znacznej większości zasobów (ok. 78%). Struktura i funkcja w poprzednim raporcie oceniona była na U2 (prawdopodobnie nadreprezentacja stanowisk z Beskidów Zachodnich w PMŚ, niewiele stanowisk w obszarach o największych zasobach). Dlatego aktualnie oceniono Strukturę i funkcje oraz perspektywy dla tego parametru na U1.
Zagrożeniem jest powolny, postępujący proces sukcesji – wskazywało na to odnotowanie obecności krzewów zarastających płaty muraw. Ostanie obserwacje PMŚ na części stanowisk (głównie Pieniny) wskazują na stan FV. Perspektywy ochrony poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej.
Źródłem informacji są plany ochrony parku narodowego i PZO obszaru Natura 2000 oraz PMŚ i inf. ustne od ekspertów. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie raport został wykonany na podstawie danych z planów ochrony parku narodowego i PZO obszaru Natura 2000 oraz inf. ustnych P. Nejfeld, z uwzględnieniem wyników z PMŚ.

Zasięg, mimo że niewielki, oceniono jako FV, gdyż siedlisko jest wykształcone w miejscach, których właściwości abiotyczne pozwalaja na jego rozwój – jak poprzednio.
Lepsze oceny Powierzchni siedliska oraz Struktury i funkcji (z U2 na U1). Perspektywy ochrony – ocena bez zmian: U1 (zagrożone są stanowiska w Zachodnich Beskidach, zwłaszcza leżące poza obszarami chronionymi. Głównym zagrożeniem jest proces sukcesji. W Pieninach i Małych Pieninach sytuacja jest lepsza – możliwe są (także w przyszłości) zabiegi ochrony czynnej.
Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The total area of semi-natural grasslands across all biogeographical regions was estimated based on data from the RT inventory (a national inventory with a random sampling design; SLU 2018b., H. Gardfjell1, https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). The estimate varies among years and here we used the mean of five estimates calculated from yearly sampling data 2013-2017 (H. Gardfjell, unpublished data) to approximate total grazed semi-natural grassland cover in Sweden. The mean was 3323km2 (yearly estimates varied from 3123 to 3635 km2). It can be assumed that the semi-natural habitat classification in the RT inventory covers the habitat types 1330, 1630, 4010, 4030, 5130, 6120, 6210, 6230, 6270, 6280, 6410, 6450, and 9070 that all are primarily managed by grazing (H. Gardfjell, personal communication). Since area estimates were assessed with data from other sources for all but four of these habitat types (i.e. 4030, 6210 in ALP and BOR, 6230, and 6410), the total area of the four remaining grazed semi-natural grassland habitat types was calculated by subtracting the estimated areas of the already assessed habitat types (i.e. 1330, 1630, 4010, 5130, 6120, 6210 in CON, 6270, 6280, 6450, and 9070) from the total 3323 km2. The difference (471 km2) was distributed among 4030, 6210, 6230, and 6410 based on their relative extent (in % per biogeographic region) as recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases (Naturanaturtypskartan NNK 2018, Jordbruksverket 2018). The resulting area estimates are uncertain given the uncertainty of the total area estimate extracted from the RT inventory and all assumptions behind the subsequent calculations.

The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of one H-ranked and one M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Problems in dry grassland biotopes’ delimitation The dry grassland communities (alliance Festucion valesiacae) present in Slovakia could be classified within three different natural habitat types: 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates, 6240* Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands, and 6250* Pannonic loess steppic grasslands. The contents of these habitat types overlap a great deal, and this makes the classification extremely complicated. Due to the absence of internationally standardized information, the European Community has accepted these vague units as Natural Habitat Types of Community Interest according to Annex I of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), although such types have unclear delimitations and are not supported by data (Dúbravková et al. 2010). They were designated using an inappropriate combination of two criteria: (I) occurrence of phytogeographically important (sub-) continental and Pannonian species, and (II) type of geological substrate. Applying the results of recent international comparative studies of grassland habitat diversity might help to re-evaluate the delimitation of habitat types and establish better criteria for international habitat classification and subsequent effective monitoring of endangered habitats. One of the most important environmental factors affecting the variability of (sub-) xerophilous vegetation of the class Festuco-Brometea is soil moisture. For this reason we suggest to classify the biotope types according to this criterion into the following two proposed categories. The first unit would include more xerophilous vegetation dominated by narrow-leaved grasses (xerophilous Festuca and Stipa species). It could be called ‘narrow-leaved dry grasslands’ and include all three the recent 6240*, 6250* and a part of 6210 habitats. Such a unit would comprise the alliance Festucion valesiacae (dry grasslands on loess, calcareous and volcanic substrata) as well as the Koelerio-Phleion phleoidis (dry grasslands on acidic substrata) and it might be subsequently divided into a few sub-units according to the type of substrate. On the other hand, the ‘broad-leaved semi-dry grasslands’ would represent the more humid habitat type dominated by Bromus erectus and Brachypodium pinnatum . From the phytosociological point of view it would include vegetation of the alliances Bromion erecti and Cirsio-Brachypodion pinnati . In the current habitat classification it partly represents the 6210 habitat. A similar habitat classification is used in practise in the habitat classification scheme of the Czech Republic (Chytrý 2001). It has repeatedly been pointed out that the Slovak habitat classification published by Stanová & Valachovič (2002) needs revision (Michálková et al. 2006; Dúbravková & Janák 2011, Dúbravková & Hajnalová 2012). The habitat 6210 in its current delimitation according to Stanová & Valachovič (2002) includes both the broad-leaved semi-dry grasslands and partly also the narrow-leaved dry grasslands, although the other part of narrow-leaved dry grasslands is classified within 6240 and 6250 habitats. This situation does not allow to evaluate the true area covered by habitats as well as the maps of habitats distribution and thus the information given here is necessarily confused! This needs to be kept in mind while reading these habitat reports. We call for remake of the Catalogue of Biotopes of Slovakia including results of the new published research studies which needs to be done at the national level. Only after this we could do the effective monitoring and conservation of the endangered habitats.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). We use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->HabCondition: In Flanders, information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: In Flanders, the conclusion on specific structures and functions deviates from the data of field 6.1 due to the integration with typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat (data determined on the regional level). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Habitats élémentaires très divers : les structures et fonctions pourraient être évaluées pour les 3 grands types d'habitat du 6210.
Les pelouses du Xerobromion (sous-type 3, 6210-26, -27, -28, -32) ont dynamique semblant plus lente que les ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) - la tendance est au morcellement et à la fermeture de ce type d'habitat. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 6210/*6210 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013). None of the area losses recorded during these two reporting periods led to a contraction in the range.
The Favourable reference range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) due to improved knowledge. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 2004 and incorporates updates made during the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) and surveys that have taken place during the current reporting period: 2015-17 GMS, Roche (2013), O’Neill & Martin (2015), Galway County Council (2017) and the AranLIFE project (Browne, in prep.).
There are probably still areas of unmapped 6210/*6210 habitat within the country, particularly within the Burren (Clare/Galway), hence the area value entered is a minimum.
Favourable Reference Area was not determined exactly. However, it is deemed to be >10% greater than the current area, given that anthropogenic losses have occurred since the Directive came into force and subsequent increases in area have not offset these losses. The 2015-17 GMS visited 55 of the 137 6210/*6210 sites that had been previously surveyed by the 2007-12 ISGS (O’Neill et al., 2013). Three of the sites had been agriculturally improved to the extent that no further survey work was undertaken there; the remaining 52 sites were surveyed to determine the extant area of 6210/*6210 and to monitor the Structure and functions. At 19 of the 55 surveyed sites areas of 6210/*6210 had been lost due to impacts such as agricultural intensification and undergrazing. The total recorded area of 6210/*6210 lost to impacts such as agricultural improvement was 1.09 km2, which represents 31% of the surveyed area.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be “decreasing” because the area of 6210/*6210 had been reduced at 19 of the 55 surveyed sites due to anthropogenic factors, such as agricultural intensification. The magnitude of the known loss is approximately -4.7% per annum, measured over a period of 7 years between this monitoring period and the previous, calculated by estimating the area lost and expressing this as a per-annum percentage of the original area. At two sites the area of 6210/*6211 was recorded as increasing, but these increases in area are small when compared to the overall loss. This area loss is taken to be the minimum, with other undocumented losses likely to have taken place in sites not surveyed since the previous monitoring period. Also as monitoring for the current reporting period focused on “primary areas” of Annex I grassland (i.e., those areas representing the best examples of the 6210/*6210 habitat), as recommended by O’Neill et al. (2013), it is likely that losses would have been higher if a more representative sample of sites had been surveyed. If the 31% loss in area is applied to the 6210/*6210 area of 14.29 km2 reported in NPWS (2013) the total reported loss in area nationally during the current reporting period would be 4.43 km2.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is primarily due to anthropogenic impacts such as agricultural intensification. The current area of 14.16 km2 reported in Section 5.2 is smaller than the 14.29 km2 reported in NPWS (2013), but the difference between the two reporting periods is much smaller than the 1.09 km2 of lost 6210/*6210 reported above. Primarily this is due to the fact that some areas of 6210/*6210 habitat that had not been mapped during the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013), such as areas of 6210 mapped during the AranLIFE project, have now been added to the dataset.
There were six points from O’Neill et al. (2013) where the habitat was found but was below the minimum mapping area. A value of 0.02 ha was assigned to these points.
To allow other point files, such as AranLIFE, to contribute to the total area of 6210/*6210 calculated for the current reporting period, a review of the datasets was carried out using remote imagery and following this review a mean value of 0.35 ha was assigned to each of these points. For the one polyline file (Roche, 2013) the total length of 6210/*6210 habitat was calculated and this was multiplied by a width of 3 m to provide an area. ||
->HabCondition: Changes between the percentage of the habitat in good condition reported by NPWS (2013) and the current reporting period are due to the use of different methods, with modified assessment criteria used in this reporting period (see Martin et al., 2018).
The area of 6210/*6210 habitat in good condition was estimated for each of the 52 surveyed sites based on the percentage of monitoring stops at each site that were assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions. As the sample of 52 GMS sites is considered representative of the national resource the proportion in good and not-good condition were scaled up to estimate the national area. The plots recorded by AranLIFE (Browne, in prep.) were not utilised as they were not associated with mapped areas of 6210/*6210 habitat.
The percentage of the 6210/*6210 habitat with Favourable Structure and functions has increased from 22% in the last reporting period (NPWS, 2013) to 83% in the current reporting period. However, trend is reported as stable as the assessment criteria have been modified (e.g. high-quality indicator species within a 20 m vicinity of the stop were taken into consideration during the current reporting period) and the nature of the assessed areas has changed (e.g. most areas that were surveyed during the current reporting period were >1 ha). Also the methodology for calculating the percentage of the habitat nationally that is in good condition was changed. In the previous reporting period (NPWS, 2013), only sites where the total area of 6210/*6210 was assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions were included within the percentage in good condition. In this reporting period the approximate area of each site with Favourable Structure and functions was calculated based on the percentage of monitoring stops that were assessed to have Favourable Structure and functions.
All taxa included in the current list of typical species, except the orchid species and upland moss species listed in Section 6.7 above, are as follows:
Antennaria dioica, Anthyllis vulneraria, Arabis hirsuta, Asperula cynanchica, Blackstonia perfoliata, Brachypodium pinnatum, Briza media, Bromopsis erecta, Campanula rotundifolia, Carex caryophyllea, Carex flacca, Carlina vulgaris, Centaurea scabiosa, Ctenidium molluscum, Daucus carota, Filipendula vulgaris, Galium verum, Gentiana verna, Gentianella amarella, Gentianella campestris, Geranium sanguineum, Helictotrichon pubescens, Homalothecium lutescens, Knautia arvensis, Koeleria macrantha, Leontodon hispidus, Leontodon saxatilis, Linum catharticum, Lotus corniculatus, Origanum vulgare, Pilosella officinarum, Primula veris, Ranunculus bulbosus, Sanguisorba minor, Sesleria caerulea, Thymus polytrichus, Trisetum flavescens. ||
->Future: Section 8.5 lists conservation measures that are currently being implemented. Section 8.6 lists additional conservation measures that are recommended, but which are not currently being implemented. If the recommendations were to be implemented, the future trend of Area could be assessed as stable rather than very negative. However, because it is impossible to be certain that any such recommended measures will in fact be carried out over the next monitoring period, the future trend must be assessed as very negative.

Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as negative, as the range is expected to decrease based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Poor.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Decreasing.
Current Area is >10% less than Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Unfavourable-Bad with the magnitude of the known loss -4.7% per annum.
Future trend of Area is assessed as very negative, as Area is expected to decrease based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Bad.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate as >75% but <90% of habitat is in “good” condition.
Short-term trend direction is Stable (for habitat that is in “good” condition). The Burren Programme and AranLIFE programmes are counterbalancing negative trends outside these areas.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Poor. ||
->Conclusion: The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, as it had been during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Bad during the current reporting period was due to the loss in area of -4.7% per annum.
Overall trend in Conservation Status was assessed as deteriorating during the current reporting period, as large areas of the habitat had been lost due to impacts such as agricultural intensification. These impacts are expected to continue into the future. During the previous reporting period the overall trend had been assessed as stable, as there had been very little data available for assessing the area of the 6210/*6210 habitat that had been lost.
The change in Structure and functions from Unfavourable-Bad, reported during the last reporting period, to Unfavourable-Inadequate is mainly due to the use of a different method. However, it should be noted that improvements in the condition of the habitat are ongoing through the Burren programme and AranLIFE project. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 6 years ago reported range is incorrect and should be 500; therefore the trend is stable.
Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites and relevé data in- and outside Natura 2000-sites over a period of 12 years. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and relevé data may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends.
Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data available ||
->HabCondition: NDFF analysis showed a positive trend (see Janssen et al. 2019 for the methodology); a rather high percentage of the area is in an early stage of development, which makes that the overall score low but the trend positive; fauna stays behind. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: TS=U2, positive trend in plant species ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data ||
->Other: Report by Joop Schaminée (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Negative - slight/moderate deterioration.
The Future prospects for Structure and functions takes into account that at least 25% of the habitat area is expected to be in unfavourable (not good) condition in c.2030 due to nutrient N critical load exceedance, unless measures are taken to reduce N deposition impacts. ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is increasing; and (ii) the current Area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - increasing, and Structure and functions - decreasing.
||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Area covered by habitat has been calculated taking into account the fact that 2/3 of the country has been inventoried and the total area proportionally might be larger by one third. From mapped habitat 994 ha or 21% of semi-natural grasslands of 6210 has lost their quality and no longer meets the minimum habitat criteria, but can still be restored (this area can be considered to have lost its quality over the last 6-12 years). It should be taken into account that the data is not comparable as before country wide habitat maping was not conducted, so this assumption might change after finishing EU habitat maping. The minimum area of ​​6210 is 4455.23 ha, the maximum - 5800 ha. The habitat area reported in the previous report was 3000 ha (based on approximate estimates). ||
->HabCondition: Accordingly to habitat mapping results (project "Nature Census") and information from Rural Support Service, 30% of all grassland habitats are abandoned and continues to overgrow. More than half of grassland habitats in bad quality due to inappropriate management. Currently impossible to evaluate proportion of grasslands in good condition. In previous report similar amount of habitats were unmanaged. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: No precise data to make trend assessment is available. Conclusions in previous report were based mainly on results of 6210 monitoring in Natura 2000 sites. Currently information on state leven analysed ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: The total area of semi-natural grasslands across all biogeographical regions was estimated based on data from the RT inventory (a national inventory with a random sampling design; SLU 2018b., H. Gardfjell1, https://www.slu.se/institutioner/skoglig-resurshushallning/miljoanalys/thuf/). The estimate varies among years and here we used the mean of five estimates calculated from yearly sampling data 2013-2017 (H. Gardfjell, unpublished data) to approximate total grazed semi-natural grassland cover in Sweden. The mean was 3323km2 (yearly estimates varied from 3123 to 3635 km2). It can be assumed that the semi-natural habitat classification in the RT inventory covers the habitat types 1330, 1630, 4010, 4030, 5130, 6120, 6210, 6230, 6270, 6280, 6410, 6450, and 9070 that all are primarily managed by grazing (H. Gardfjell, personal communication). Since area estimates were assessed with data from other sources for all but four of these habitat types (i.e. 4030, 6210 in ALP and BOR, 6230, and 6410), the total area of the four remaining grazed semi-natural grassland habitat types was calculated by subtracting the estimated areas of the already assessed habitat types (i.e. 1330, 1630, 4010, 5130, 6120, 6210 in CON, 6270, 6280, 6450, and 9070) from the total 3323 km2. The difference (471 km2) was distributed among 4030, 6210, 6230, and 6410 based on their relative extent (in % per biogeographic region) as recorded in the NNK and TUVA databases (Naturanaturtypskartan NNK 2018, Jordbruksverket 2018). The resulting area estimates are uncertain given the uncertainty of the total area estimate extracted from the RT inventory and all assumptions behind the subsequent calculations.

The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

The assessment of a negative trend is for most grassland habitat types supported by data that indicate a continuous abandonment of semi-natural grasslands over the last few decades (e.g. Eriksson & Cousins 2014, Borgegård 2015, Cousins et al. 2015, Wallander & Karlsson 2015, Hägglund et al. 2017, Oja 2018, Spörndly & Glimskär 2018, Tyler et al. 2018, Waldén 2018, Anna Nordberg, unpublished data, Hans Gardfjell, unpublished data). ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of one H-ranked and three M-ranked recorded pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), and two threatened typical species (ArtDatabanken 2015), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Extant semi-natural grasslands are small and fragmented compared with the historical state, and habitat quality is easily eroded in periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. As a result, several indicators of grassland biodiversity indicate an unsatisfactory conservation status and a negative trend (Naturvårdsverket 2018). It is also suggested that the 2020 Swedish environmental quality objective “A Varied Agricultural Landscape” will not be reached with current practices and funding systems (https://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Undre-meny/About-the-Environmental-Objectives/13-A-Varied-Agricultural-Landscape/). As there are several pressures acting on structures and functions in semi-natural grasslands (see paragraph 7), the trend for structures and functions of most habitat types is assumed to be negative. This assumption is supported by a recent report that indicate that the number of agricultural holdings is decreasing, especially in less productive regions where much of the grasslands rich in biodiversity are located (Naturvårdsverket 2018). Also, empirical studies indicate an ongoing and significant abandonment of semi-natural grasslands (Spörndly & Glimskär 2018), that populations of many species tied to the agricultural landscape in general and semi-natural grasslands in particular, are declining or threatened (e.g. Berg et al. 2015, Sandström et al. 2015, Green et al. 2017, Jakobsson 2018, Tyler et al. 2018), and by data that suggests decreased biodiversity due to fragmentation among remaining objects (Lennartsson et al. 2013, Wallander & Karlsson 2015). ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The knowledge is based on Natura2000 sites mapping with some extrapolation for complex or mosaïc of habitats (% of cover) + restoration LIFE Projects between 2012 and 2018 (+/- 74 ha) ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Les jeux de données remontés en 2012 et 2018 sont vraiment différents et ne peuvent pas être comparés. la carte 2012 surévalue probablement la distribution effective de l'habitat, alors que celle de 2018 sous-évalue nettement cette distribution. Lacunes très importantes dans certaines régions, mais la coche manuelle des mailles serait bien trop chronophage pour un habitat aussi largement répandu. Enjeu important d'harmoniser les méthodes de collectes des données pour le prochain rapportage, afin d'enfin pouvoir comparer les cartes entre deux exercices. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Les types les plus xérophiles de l'habitat,dans lesquels les processus dynamiques sont très lents, sont bien moins menacés à court terme par la fermeture du tapis végétal que les types mésophiles de l'habitat, qui évoluent très rapidement suite à l'abandon des pratiques pastorales. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The indicated difference in range area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: finalisation of the national inventory of biotopes outside woodlands, monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018) and genuine change.
Because of this improved knowledge, we do not consider the reduced range compared to the last reporting period as a real loss but rather as more accurate data. ||
->Coverage: Data is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 31% of this habitat type (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
Part of the area of the habitat type was extrapolated from a mixed habitat type used in the country-wide survey grouping a mosaic of rupicolous calcareous or
basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi (6110) with semi-natural dry
grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (6210) and siliceous
rock with pioneer vegetation of the Sedo-Scleranthion or of the Sedo albi-
Veronicion dillenii (8230) with acid nutrient poor grasslands (nationally
protected). Especially in the old mining region of the Minette in the south of
Luxembourg, these types are very interlinked. During the monitoring from 2016 to 2018, the proportion of the different habitat types within the mixed habitat type was estimated. This estimation was used to calculate the total area of the different habitat types based on the complete inventory of the mixed habitat type as surveyed from 2007 to 2012. This extrapolation affects approximately 20% of the total area indicated. The other 80% concern well distinguished areas of the 6210 habitat type.
During the initial survey, 220,81 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 31% of this area was monitored between 2016 and 2018 (not considering biotope complexes) showing a decrease of roughly 21% of this habitat type. Additional 0,47 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas while additional 2,15 ha were surveyed outside wooded areas, the latter result being not systematic. Within concerned biotope complexes, 32% were considered as corresponding to 6210.

We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the negative trend determined within the random sample, the area within the 67% of surveyed forests, the estimated proportion of this habitat type within the monitored complexe biotopes and the area discovered by chance. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original, not monitored area plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100% plus the area discovered by chance plus the estimated proportion of this habitat type within all concerned complexe biotopes plus the monitored area. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition is based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 31% of this habitat type and of the concerned biotope complexes (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
70% of the originally surveyed area, 67% of the monitored area and 90% of the monitored area of biotope complexes were in good condition.
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: While the range for 6210 is close to its favourable reference range, its area is far below its favourabe reference. During the initial inventory, 70% of the 6210 area outside biotope complexes has been evaluated as being in good condition. Monitoring of 31% of the initial area showed a decrease of some 21%. 71% of the remaining monitored area was in good condition. Within forest areas, 31% of the few occurences of this habitat type were in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Rozmieszczenie siedliska w regionie CON jest zależne od występowania odpowiednich uwarunkowań środowiskowych.
Oceniono, że Zasięg siedliska jest stabilny, ze względu na brak danych o całkowitym zaniku siedliska w poszczególnych rejonach regionu – obserwacje wskazują jedynie na lokalne zmniejszanie powierzchni wskutek zarastania lub zwiększanie się w wyniku prowadzonych działań ochronnych bądź ekspansji na odłogowane pola uprawne.
Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (56 000km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (65 294 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ znacznej zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. Wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Siedlisko w regionie CON występuje w postaci niewielkich, rozproszonych płatów. Dlatego podanie całkowitej powierzchni muraw jest obarczone dużym błędem.

Powierzchnia siedliska miejscami ulega prawdopodobnie stopniowemu zmniejszeniu, w wyniku zarastania przez drzewa i krzewy, przy braku użytkowania pastwiskowego i/lub kośnego. Z drugiej strony w wielu obszarach wdrożono działania ochrony czynnej, które przyczyniają się do stabilizacji powierzchni, lub jej zwiększania w wyniku odkrzaczania. Nie oszacowano jednak precyzyjnie tempa tych procesów, brak danych porównawczych, choć prawdopodobnie nie osiąga granicznej wartości ok. 1% rocznie. Dlatego trend określono jako niepewny (poprzednio jako nieznany).
Trend powierzchni zajętej przez siedlisko niepewny, ze względu na brak precyzyjnych danych porównawczych z wymaganego okresu.

Źródła informacji:
Baza danych Natura 2000. GDOŚ. Warszawa: http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/

Ogólnopolska baza muraw kserotermicznych
http://www.murawy.kp.org.pl/index2.php ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring prowadzono na 147 stanowiskach w regionie, zlokalizowanych w różnych częściach zasięgu.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX
Trend uznano za niepewny, gdyż w okresie 2013/14 monitoring został przeprowadzony na 147 stanowiskach , a poprzednio (2006-2008) na 109. Tak duża różnica, w tym włączenie wielu stanowisk, prawdopodobnie w wielu przypadkach w gorszym stanie niż badane w pierwszym okresie może zaburzać wnioskowanie. ||
->Future: Perspektywy ochrony poprawia fakt wdrożenia działań ochrony czynnej w wielu obiektach.
Źródłem informacji jest PMŚ, GDOŚ ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie raport został wykonany na podstawie danych z wybranych planów ochrony i PZO obszarów Natura 2000 oraz PMŚ.
Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The current habitat range was calculated with the Rangetool provided from the reference portal (European environment agency 2018). For the grasslands, information in different databases (e.g. Jordbruksverket 2018 and NNK 2018 and special inventories such as Glimskär 2018, Jacobson 2018, Toräng 2018a, 2018b) were included in an ArcGIS shape-file. Visual inspection of maps indicating which quadrates that were included in the calculations of surface area was conducted and apparent errors (most often quadrates without any land surface in the marine regions) were removed.
All changes in Range estimates compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, are due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as genuine changes from previous reporting periods.

The judgement is that the short-term trend in range is stable. Given the coarse method to calculate surface area, large changes in habitat area are usually needed to affect this parameter significantly. It is unlikely that changes of sufficient magnitude to motivate any other assessment but ‘stable’ (or ‘unknown’) have occurred over the last 12 years. ||
->Coverage: It was assumed that the NNK- and TUVA databases include all present occurrences of this habitat type in the CON region as most of them are located within Natura 2000 sites on southern Öland and in Skåne. The geometries recorded in the databases have been imported into ArcGIS where overlaying polygons have been removed. The reported figures are calculated by summing the areas of all remaining objects. The estimate should be relatively accurate but there may be additional occurrences not recorded in the databases.

The change in the area estimate compared with previous reports in 2007 and 2013, is due to improved knowledge and/or more accurate data and should not be interpreted as a genuine change from previous reporting periods.

As a large portion of the habitat area is within protected Natura 2000 reserves, the trend is assumed to be relatively stable. ||
->HabCondition: Conservation status (or condition) is generally not characterized or recorded in current databases or national inventory programs. Habitat area in good and not-good condition is with few exceptions therefore not known in any habitat. Area assessments and the short-term trend were thus estimated from indirect information. Available information sources were the NNK database (NNK 2018), the TUVA database (Jordbruksverket 2018), a monitoring program supervised by Anders Glimskär at the Department of Ecology, SLU, and data on the proportion of TUVA-objects with subsidies in recent years (A. Nordberg, unpublished data).
Given the lack of direct information, it is obvious that a precise estimate of the proportion of habitat area in good condition cannot be assessed. However, it is suggested that an expert judgement of the overall assessment of the Structure and functions parameter will be robust given the broad categories (i.e. Favourable, Inadequate-poor, and Inadequate-bad). An approximate proportion of habitat area in good condition based on information from NNK, TUVA, and the monitoring program was therefore estimated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken, SLU).

The presence of one H-ranked and three M-ranked pressures and threats (excluding A06 and B01 that mainly affect the habitat distribution), support the assessment as Inadequate-bad.

The trend was denoted based on information of pressures acting on structures and functions in the habitats. Recent reports indicate a growing problem with invasive species. In particular, several Cotoneaster species may become problematic in these habitats. ||
->Future: It is assumed that the implemented conservation measures are not wide-ranging enough to improve parameters assessed as ‘bad’ to ‘good’. Consequently, the assessment of future prospect is equal to the current conservation status for all parameters. ||
->Conclusion: The overall assessment of conservation status was made following the evaluation matrix in the ETC Explanatory Notes & Guidelines. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types.
In case that larger new areas would be mapped or previously mapped areas would be remapped, these data could be used to compare the situation with previous reporting. Since new data were not available, we kept the size of the areas from the previous reporting. ||
->HabCondition: Previous and this reporting required a numerical assessment of the areas of habitat types in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Because data for entire biogeographical regions are not available, we used data from accessible mappings of habitat types. In order to estimate area of surfaces in favorable and in unfavorable condition, we used the ratio that was the result of the analysis of surfaces in a favorable and unfavorable condition in existing habitat type mappings. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critères à prendre en compte pour évaluer ce paramètre : fragmentation, connectivité ; dynamique trophique de l'habitat ; "équilibre" agri-écologique ; dynamique de renouvellement de la végétation ; structure de l'habitat (dont couverture du sol) ; diversité phytocénotique et biologique ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonctions U1. L'habitat à tendance à être de plus en plus fragmenté. Certaines pelouses subissent un amendement qui modifie le niveau trophique de l'habitat. L'équilibre agri-écologique traditionnel a tendance à disparaître ce qui entraîne une évolution de la végétation et une déstructuration de l'habitat. En revanche la diversité phytocénotique et biologique reste globalement bonne.
QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation "En détérioration" de la tendance générale à dire d'expert (au moins une tendance à court terme négative) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Problems in dry grassland biotopes’ delimitation The dry grassland communities (alliance Festucion valesiacae) present in Slovakia could be classified within three different natural habitat types: 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates, 6240* Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands, and 6250* Pannonic loess steppic grasslands. The contents of these habitat types overlap a great deal, and this makes the classification extremely complicated. Due to the absence of internationally standardized information, the European Community has accepted these vague units as Natural Habitat Types of Community Interest according to Annex I of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), although such types have unclear delimitations and are not supported by data (Dúbravková et al. 2010). They were designated using an inappropriate combination of two criteria: (I) occurrence of phytogeographically important (sub-) continental and Pannonian species, and (II) type of geological substrate. Applying the results of recent international comparative studies of grassland habitat diversity might help to re-evaluate the delimitation of habitat types and establish better criteria for international habitat classification and subsequent effective monitoring of endangered habitats. One of the most important environmental factors affecting the variability of (sub-) xerophilous vegetation of the class Festuco-Brometea is soil moisture. For this reason we suggest to classify the biotope types according to this criterion into the following two proposed categories. The first unit would include more xerophilous vegetation dominated by narrow-leaved grasses (xerophilous Festuca and Stipa species). It could be called ‘narrow-leaved dry grasslands’ and include all three the recent 6240*, 6250* and a part of 6210 habitats. Such a unit would comprise the alliance Festucion valesiacae (dry grasslands on loess, calcareous and volcanic substrata) as well as the Koelerio-Phleion phleoidis (dry grasslands on acidic substrata) and it might be subsequently divided into a few sub-units according to the type of substrate. On the other hand, the ‘broad-leaved semi-dry grasslands’ would represent the more humid habitat type dominated by Bromus erectus and Brachypodium pinnatum . From the phytosociological point of view it would include vegetation of the alliances Bromion erecti and Cirsio-Brachypodion pinnati . In the current habitat classification it partly represents the 6210 habitat. A similar habitat classification is used in practise in the habitat classification scheme of the Czech Republic (Chytrý 2001). It has repeatedly been pointed out that the Slovak habitat classification published by Stanová & Valachovič (2002) needs revision (Michálková et al. 2006; Dúbravková & Janák 2011, Dúbravková & Hajnalová 2012). The habitat 6210 in its current delimitation according to Stanová & Valachovič (2002) includes both the broad-leaved semi-dry grasslands and partly also the narrow-leaved dry grasslands, although the other part of narrow-leaved dry grasslands is classified within 6240 and 6250 habitats. This situation does not allow to evaluate the true area covered by habitats as well as the maps of habitats distribution and thus the information given here is necessarily confused! This needs to be kept in mind while reading these habitat reports. We call for remake of the Catalogue of Biotopes of Slovakia including results of the new published research studies which needs to be done at the national level. Only after this we could do the effective monitoring and conservation of the endangered habitats.

Open Original Report